A place where three roads (viae) converge is called, in Latin, a trivium. About 13 centuries ago, intellectuals started referring to a group of three studies as the Trivium because they saw relationships among them. Those studies were grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Grammar consisted of putting symbols together; logic, of thinking; and rhetoric, of communicating. All three converged at the crossroads of fact or truth.
Is there a different trivium? If there is, it meets at the crossroads of obfuscation and opinion. Neither fact nor truth is the goal for many in education, politics, and social interactions best encapsulated in chat rooms and gossip on the Web. Almost every topic receives slanted coverage, coverage that is one-sided and aimed at harming or destroying a supposed “enemy” or “presumed evil” person.
It’s not that we have “come to this.” The symbols of any age make coherent and semi-coherent statements about axioms. The logic that derives from those axioms makes perfect sense to those who accept them as self-evident. Then, the defense of those axioms in the “grammar” that symbolizes them becomes the preferred rhetoric of the day. Today, that rhetoric defends every special interest regardless of the many definitions of “truth.” And those defenses put us in constant quandary and in frequent conflict.
If you are an Earthling, and I assume you are, then I have little doubt that you want to preserve the environment on the only planet on which Earthlings can live. It makes good sense to keep Earth a viable home for human life. Now consider the possibility that that comfy environment might be changing. How do we talk to one another about such a change? What if we don't start from the same axioms? And what if the grammar, logic, and rhetoric vary widely among those who discuss the possible maintenance of a steady environment conducive to human life and to established ecologies?
Apparently, the climate is warming, but some reasonable people question to what extent and to what effect. So much of what we hear is based not on unshakable data, but rather on estimates from models. And some of the supposed data appears to be a bit questionable.
Parts of the climate arguments are based on some solid facts. Measurements on top Mauna Loa have shown an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide; it has the reached 400 parts per million, an increase of 150 ppm since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. We know that gas to be a greenhouse gas, so we assume that there is a direct and immediate cause and effect relationship. But, of course, there might be simple a coincidental relationship, such as having every supper interrupted by a ringing phone. Eating doesn’t cause a phone to ring.
We also know, as a fact, that Earth underwent large shifts in climate long before humans burned their first log to add some carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. That means, of course, that humans had no influence on earlier large climate shifts, including the warming that ended the last large continental glacial epoch 8,000 to 10,000 years ago. Finally, we have very good evidence that, relative to today’s temperatures, Earth has been both much warmer and much colder. Periods of great warming, such as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum and the Little Ice Age indicate that the vicissitudes of climate are a norm, varying through Earth history on time scales and in geography.
At the climate crossroads of grammar, logic, and rhetoric we see people poised to defend positions based more on their axioms than on their command of fact and truth. Some of those positions are based on temporary weather phenomena like droughts, rainy spells, or even cold weather. Other positions assume that humans are much too insignificant to affect climate. When the proofs come from conflicting axioms, then the rhetoric becomes more strident. Almost every set of axioms engenders its own grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Now, just about everyone is yelling at everyone on the other side of the issue. That makes obfuscation dominate the issue. This is not a new human circumstance. The crossroads of climate arguments is a model of human interaction. Teens have axioms that parents might once have held but have since abandoned. Political parties stand by their axioms regardless of their consequences. Religious groups seem to follow the same practice, and even scientists find breaking from untenable axioms difficult to do.
It seems that humans are always at crossroads on many issues. We’re all shouting at one another because we stand on different crossroads. It’s surprising that we literally haven’t all gone deaf.
Is there a different trivium? If there is, it meets at the crossroads of obfuscation and opinion. Neither fact nor truth is the goal for many in education, politics, and social interactions best encapsulated in chat rooms and gossip on the Web. Almost every topic receives slanted coverage, coverage that is one-sided and aimed at harming or destroying a supposed “enemy” or “presumed evil” person.
It’s not that we have “come to this.” The symbols of any age make coherent and semi-coherent statements about axioms. The logic that derives from those axioms makes perfect sense to those who accept them as self-evident. Then, the defense of those axioms in the “grammar” that symbolizes them becomes the preferred rhetoric of the day. Today, that rhetoric defends every special interest regardless of the many definitions of “truth.” And those defenses put us in constant quandary and in frequent conflict.
If you are an Earthling, and I assume you are, then I have little doubt that you want to preserve the environment on the only planet on which Earthlings can live. It makes good sense to keep Earth a viable home for human life. Now consider the possibility that that comfy environment might be changing. How do we talk to one another about such a change? What if we don't start from the same axioms? And what if the grammar, logic, and rhetoric vary widely among those who discuss the possible maintenance of a steady environment conducive to human life and to established ecologies?
Apparently, the climate is warming, but some reasonable people question to what extent and to what effect. So much of what we hear is based not on unshakable data, but rather on estimates from models. And some of the supposed data appears to be a bit questionable.
Parts of the climate arguments are based on some solid facts. Measurements on top Mauna Loa have shown an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide; it has the reached 400 parts per million, an increase of 150 ppm since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. We know that gas to be a greenhouse gas, so we assume that there is a direct and immediate cause and effect relationship. But, of course, there might be simple a coincidental relationship, such as having every supper interrupted by a ringing phone. Eating doesn’t cause a phone to ring.
We also know, as a fact, that Earth underwent large shifts in climate long before humans burned their first log to add some carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. That means, of course, that humans had no influence on earlier large climate shifts, including the warming that ended the last large continental glacial epoch 8,000 to 10,000 years ago. Finally, we have very good evidence that, relative to today’s temperatures, Earth has been both much warmer and much colder. Periods of great warming, such as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum and the Little Ice Age indicate that the vicissitudes of climate are a norm, varying through Earth history on time scales and in geography.
At the climate crossroads of grammar, logic, and rhetoric we see people poised to defend positions based more on their axioms than on their command of fact and truth. Some of those positions are based on temporary weather phenomena like droughts, rainy spells, or even cold weather. Other positions assume that humans are much too insignificant to affect climate. When the proofs come from conflicting axioms, then the rhetoric becomes more strident. Almost every set of axioms engenders its own grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Now, just about everyone is yelling at everyone on the other side of the issue. That makes obfuscation dominate the issue. This is not a new human circumstance. The crossroads of climate arguments is a model of human interaction. Teens have axioms that parents might once have held but have since abandoned. Political parties stand by their axioms regardless of their consequences. Religious groups seem to follow the same practice, and even scientists find breaking from untenable axioms difficult to do.
It seems that humans are always at crossroads on many issues. We’re all shouting at one another because we stand on different crossroads. It’s surprising that we literally haven’t all gone deaf.
RSS Feed